I see. Guru Nanak was a syncretist who gathered practices from all around and made a stew.

He went all arounnd looking for the highest/ truest teachings. He did not just incorporate many things but sought out the highest. I wouldn't say he simply "made a stew".

deepbluehum wrote: The Guru Granth Sahib mentions Buddha and Nirvana. Ek on kar, sat nam, karta purak, nirvo nirvan. This first verse of the Guru Granth Sahib is about nirvana.

Also talks about god being everything, all beings and things being a reflection of god. God (and all phenomena, mind and matter) empty, self luminous, and so on. Come on, it is obvious he was influenced by his visits to the Buddhist lands, Tibet, Sikkhim, etc.

deepbluehum wrote: But, the founding philosophy is that the way to practice is through bhakti yoga in the form of singing bhajans and doing japa of "wahe guru sat nam," which is an epithet for the creator god like Allah.

A creator like Allah? No not exactly.

deepbluehum wrote: I don't think Guru Nanak Dev had anything resembling the power of Guru Rinpoche who is most definitely unmatched in the world in terms of yogic power.

No one said Guru Nanak Dev performed many miracles like Guru Rinpoche did. But some people (apparently many Tibetans if you read what I posted on the first pages of the thread) believe him to be an emenation of Guru Rinpoche. This gives more credence to the possibility him being a Dzogchenpa.

deepbluehum wrote: Guru Nanak Dev was much more heavily influenced by Mardana his muslim attendant and spent much more time in Muslim lands doing Sufi practice.

There may be Sufi infleunces, this is certainly possible. But his Sikh bios also have him doing a retreat after visiting Samye (a Nyingma temple). . .

Also talks about god being everything, all beings and things being a reflection of god. God (and all phenomena, mind and matter) empty, self luminous, and so on. Come on, it is obvious he was influenced by his visits to the Buddhist lands, Tibet, Sikkhim, etc.

That's quite vague and possibly sounds like some sort of pantheism like Advaita.

deepbluehum wrote: But, the founding philosophy is that the way to practice is through bhakti yoga in the form of singing bhajans and doing japa of "wahe guru sat nam," which is an epithet for the creator god like Allah.

A creator like Allah? No not exactly.

Kevin

Can you please elaborate on this? In the mul mantra, the first words to come out of Guru Nanak's mouth is "ik onkar" meaning one universal creator. Allah is also the one universal creator.

Nighthawk wrote:Can you please elaborate on this? In the mul mantra, the first words to come out of Guru Nanak's mouth is "ik onkar" meaning one universal creator. Allah is also the one universal creator.

How is this different from any other monotheistic religion?

Sure.

The Mul mantra is translated as:

One Creator/One Creation. Truth is His name. Doer of everything. Fearless, Revengeless, Undying, Unborn, Self illumined, The Guru's gift, Meditate! True in the beginning. True through all the ages. True even now. Oh Nanak it is forever true.

This shows that the "creator" is the creation. It is poetic language when understood correctly, imo. Also we see that it says Fearless, Revengeless. He is also called Desireless. And then Undying, Unborn (this means empty), self illumined (this means radiance).

So here we have a "God" that everything, all people, all matter, etc, is infused with, which is empty, undying, unborn, and self illuminating. This reminds me of the teachings of the five wisdom lights just not as explicit. The meditation methods too, similar to Guru Yoga, but simply not as explicit or direct.

Also talks about god being everything, all beings and things being a reflection of god. God (and all phenomena, mind and matter) empty, self luminous, and so on. Come on, it is obvious he was influenced by his visits to the Buddhist lands, Tibet, Sikkhim, etc.

That's quite vague and possibly sounds like some sort of pantheism like Advaita.

Yes but it also sounds somewhat reminiscent of Dzogchen, imo, and we can place him in Tibet, Sikkim, etc.

Nighthawk wrote:Can you please elaborate on this? In the mul mantra, the first words to come out of Guru Nanak's mouth is "ik onkar" meaning one universal creator. Allah is also the one universal creator.

How is this different from any other monotheistic religion?

Sure.

The Mul mantra is translated as:

One Creator/One Creation. Truth is His name. Doer of everything. Fearless, Revengeless, Undying, Unborn, Self illumined, The Guru's gift, Meditate! True in the beginning. True through all the ages. True even now. Oh Nanak it is forever true.

This shows that the "creator" is the creation. It is poetic language when understood correctly, imo. Also we see that it says Fearless, Revengeless. He is also called Desireless. And then Undying, Unborn (this means empty), self illumined (this means radiance).

So here we have a "God" that everything, all people, all matter, etc, is infused with, which is empty, undying, unborn, and self illuminating. This reminds me of the teachings of the five wisdom lights just not as explicit. The meditation methods too, similar to Guru Yoga, but simply not as explicit or direct.

Kevin

You're translating it in your own words to make it sound more Buddhist. That's not to say Sikhism wasn't influenced at all by Buddhism as most eastern faiths have influenced each other at one point or another due to close contact.

Nighthawk wrote:You're translating it in your own words to make it sound more Buddhist. That's not to say Sikhism wasn't influenced at all by Buddhism as most eastern faiths have influenced each other at one point or another due to close contact.

Nope. I grabbed right off the internet except for the one creator/one creation part, which I read after another search for the Mul matra (after i had already posted it on the first page) so this time I added that part with the other translation I had. I did not personally translate it that way.

The influence is not a wonder at all Nighthawk since Guru Nanak Dev visited Tibet, including Samye monastery (and famous Nyingma monastery where Dzogchen would have been taught) and then did a retreat after that.

Guru Nanak crossed into Arunachal Pradesh and visited most of the part. First while going to Lhasa (Tibet) he passed through Tawang after crossing from Bhutan and entered Tibet from Samdurang Chu. He returned from Lhasa and went to the famous monastery Samye and entered Pemoshubu Menchukha in Arunachal Pradesh. He meditated for some time at this location. From Menchukha he went back to Tibet, brought the residents of Southern Tibet and got them settled in Menchukha. Thereafter through Gelling and Tuiting he proceeded to Saidya and Braham-Kund, before entering the state of Assam again. Guru Nanak is the founder of the Sikh religion." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru_Nanak_Dev

You are reading what you want to read into some vague statements. Is it really relevant to your practice? I'm not saying one or or another there is influence or not, but it's really impossible to tell unless you have some texts that straight out acknowledge it.

Sherlock wrote:You are reading what you want to read into some vague statements. Is it really relevant to your practice? I'm not saying one or or another there is influence or not, but it's really impossible to tell unless you have some texts that straight out acknowledge it.

My practice is fine. It has nothing to do with my practice. It is history. It's a hobby of mine.

Where there is smoke there just might be a fire. It doesn't hurt to look. And in the end, the thread title is "Is the Sikh religion influenced by (even based on) Dzogchen?

It's just a question, really.

Also, the mul mantra isn't vague. It is of the utmost importance in Sikhism. And we don't have much reason to doubt his Sikh bio, really.

Nighthawk wrote:You're translating it in your own words to make it sound more Buddhist. That's not to say Sikhism wasn't influenced at all by Buddhism as most eastern faiths have influenced each other at one point or another due to close contact.

Nope. I grabbed right off the internet except for the one creator/one creation part, which I read after another search for the Mul matra (after i had already posted it on the first page) so this time I added that part with the other translation I had. I did not personally translate it that way.

The influence is not a wonder at all Nighthawk since Guru Nanak Dev visited Tibet, including Samye monastery (and famous Nyingma monastery where Dzogchen would have been taught) and then did a retreat after that.

Guru Nanak crossed into Arunachal Pradesh and visited most of the part. First while going to Lhasa (Tibet) he passed through Tawang after crossing from Bhutan and entered Tibet from Samdurang Chu. He returned from Lhasa and went to the famous monastery Samye and entered Pemoshubu Menchukha in Arunachal Pradesh. He meditated for some time at this location. From Menchukha he went back to Tibet, brought the residents of Southern Tibet and got them settled in Menchukha. Thereafter through Gelling and Tuiting he proceeded to Saidya and Braham-Kund, before entering the state of Assam again. Guru Nanak is the founder of the Sikh religion." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru_Nanak_Dev

That's about all the evidence I need.

Kevin

Thanks, this is an interesting religion. I'll have to read more into this.

deepbluehum wrote:Ask yourself, if Islam were to disappear from the face of the Earth, would the world be a better place, or no difference?

Not at all, no difference. The poison isn't in the belief system, it's in how individuals relate to the belief system. How people relate to themselves and the world is the issue. Attachment and aversion is where the problem lies, all separation and disputes are predicated on attachment/aversion. It's a sickness of the mind, not a sickness of the belief system. Even you and I discussing this now are subtly creating our little division, you take one side, I take another and the contrasting views create conflict on a small scale (even though we're obviously being cordial towards each other). Now take this little debate and super size it to the level of different cultures debating religious views, land rights etc... there's always two sides to every story. Islam cannot be an issue without someone having an issue with Islam, it's a projection of the self into the other. We are only ever fighting ourselves, (but because we are victims of our own projections) it stays on a subconscious level. Muslims are no different than you or I, they are merely a human being accepting and rejecting things, just as you/me accept or reject them. Islam is not the threat, we, who would reject and demonize Islam are the threat to ourselves, we create the enemy by rejecting it, and then we say "wouldn't the world be a better place without Islam?" While the muslim is saying the exact same thing about those who fight against them. You cannot kill a religion, you cannot kill an idea, the war is an endless war, because you yourself create the enemy through your own attachments. The war is within yourself, you say "I am this", "they are that", but they are only ever what you make them, there is no objective truth, your perceptions are only ever projections of yourself.

“Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without.” - Siddhārtha Gautama

"Be the change that you wish to see in the world"- Mahatma Gandhi

“The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.” - Albert Einstein

“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.” - Leo Tolstoy

I see. Guru Nanak was a syncretist who gathered practices from all around and made a stew.

He went all arounnd looking for the highest/ truest teachings. He did incorporate many things but he was seeking the highest, I wouldn't say he just "made a stew".

Have you been to a Gurudwara? Have you spoken to a Bhaiji? You are reaching with your suppositions about what the Guru Granth Sahib is about. Nanak made a truce between Islam and Hinduism. That's about it. Sikhism is theistic. Waheguru is the Creator God. Sikhs mean the Creator with a capital C, and God with a capital G, not the All Creating King aka nature of mind, freedom from extremes. Nanak could have put all the pretty dharma words in the book, that doesn't mean he understood any of it. He was coming from a theistic Hindu standpoint.

deepbluehum wrote:Ask yourself, if Islam were to disappear from the face of the Earth, would the world be a better place, or no difference?

Not at all, no difference. The poison isn't in the belief system, it's in how individuals relate to the belief system. How people relate to themselves and the world is the issue. Attachment and aversion is where the problem lies, all separation and disputes are predicated on attachment/aversion. It's a sickness of the mind, not a sickness of the belief system. Even you and I discussing this now are subtly creating our little division, you take one side, I take another and the contrasting views create conflict on a small scale (even though we're obviously being cordial towards each other). Now take this little debate and super size it to the level of different cultures debating religious views, land rights etc... there's always two sides to every story. Islam cannot be an issue without someone having an issue with Islam, it's a projection of the self into the other. We are only ever fighting ourselves, (but because we are victims of our own projections) it stays on a subconscious level. Muslims are no different than you or I, they are merely a human being accepting and rejecting things, just as you/me accept or reject them. Islam is not the threat, we, who would reject and demonize Islam are the threat to ourselves, we create the enemy by rejecting it, and then we say "wouldn't the world be a better place without Islam?" While the muslim is saying the exact same thing about those who fight against them. You cannot kill a religion, you cannot kill an idea, the war is an endless war, because you yourself create the enemy through your own attachments. The war is within yourself, you say "I am this", "they are that", but they are only ever what you make them, there is no objective truth, your perceptions are only ever projections of yourself.

“Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without.” - Siddhārtha Gautama

"Be the change that you wish to see in the world"- Mahatma Gandhi

“The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.” - Albert Einstein

“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.” - Leo Tolstoy

“When we attempt to exercise power or control over someone else, we cannot avoid giving that person the very same power or control over us.” - Alan Watts

“Purity or impurity depends on oneself,No one can purify another.” - Siddhārtha Gautama

“True change is within; leave the outside as it is.” - Dalai Lama XIV

“With our thoughts we make the world.” - Siddhārtha Gautama

deepbluehum wrote:What about Buddha-dharma? Without Buddhism, the world would be uninhabitable.

Without kindness and compassion the world would be uninhabitable, kindness and compassion belong to no ideology or label.

That's nice and beautiful bla bla bla. But that won't change Islam's history of invading peaceful nations, slaughtering their children and kidnapping and raping their women to transform the society into Islamic nation. Nothing about my touchy feelies can change that. Next you are going to celebrate the virtues of communism. Islam and communism are the culprits of destruction against Buddha dharma too. I hope they are destroyed together.

Virgo wrote:This shows that the "creator" is the creation. It is poetic language when understood correctly, imo. Also we see that it says Fearless, Revengeless. He is also called Desireless. And then Undying, Unborn (this means empty), self illumined (this means radiance).

So here we have a "God" that everything, all people, all matter, etc, is infused with, which is empty, undying, unborn, and self illuminating. This reminds me of the teachings of the five wisdom lights just not as explicit. The meditation methods too, similar to Guru Yoga, but simply not as explicit or direct.

Kevin

This is just Hindu poetry like in the Upanishads. You are reaching. You go to a Gurudwara and ask for the meditation method. It's nothing like Guru Yoga. Their book is the guru now.

Sherlock wrote:You are reading what you want to read into some vague statements. Is it really relevant to your practice? I'm not saying one or or another there is influence or not, but it's really impossible to tell unless you have some texts that straight out acknowledge it.

My practice is fine. It has nothing to do with my practice. It is history. It's a hobby of mine.

Where there is smoke there just might be a fire. It doesn't hurt to look. And in the end, the thread title is "Is the Sikh religion influenced by (even based on) Dzogchen?

It's just a question, really.

Also, the mul mantra isn't vague. It is of the utmost importance in Sikhism. And we don't have much reason to doubt his Sikh bio, really.

Kevin

There are so many hindu yogis that went to Tibet and lived there. Read Swami Rama's autobiography. He talks about his grandmaster who lived in Tibet but he was an Advaita in Shankaracharya's lineage all the way.

deepbluehum wrote:Any way, Dzogchen is the religion of the dancing dakinis. Dzogchen is completely different from sikhism, thankfully.

While I was celebrating midsummer you guys managed to make Dzogchen in to a religion?

/magnus

With your Wiccan friends? Wicked. He he. Don't be so attached to words. That's the same thing Kevin's doing. He's micro-analyzing words. Dzogchen is a religion is you gather in front of a guy on a podium and sing in unison. If it walks like a duck... I know what you are saying "Dzogchen is your real condition..." That's great. Wonderful.

I see. Guru Nanak was a syncretist who gathered practices from all around and made a stew.

He went all arounnd looking for the highest/ truest teachings. He did incorporate many things but he was seeking the highest, I wouldn't say he just "made a stew".

Have you been to a Gurudwara? Have you spoken to a Bhaiji? You are reaching with your suppositions about what the Guru Granth Sahib is about. Nanak made a truce between Islam and Hinduism. That's about it. Sikhism is theistic. Waheguru is the Creator God. Sikhs mean the Creator with a capital C, and God with a capital G, not the All Creating King aka nature of mind, freedom from extremes. Nanak could have put all the pretty dharma words in the book, that doesn't mean he understood any of it. He was coming from a theistic Hindu standpoint.

Waheguru can also be said to be those things. I googled the "all creating king" aka Samantabhadra/primordial Buddha and I was pretty shocked the read the similarities."Oh all you sentient beings of this threefold world [i.e. the entire universe, both visible and invisible]! Because I, the All-Creating Sovereign, have created you, you are My children and equal to Me. Because you are not second to Me, I am present in you ... Oh all you sentient beings of this threefold world, if I were not, you would be non-existent. ... Because all things do not exist outside of Me, I firmly declare that I am all - the All-Creating One." [3]

"From the three aspects [i.e. the Unborn; no ending; source of the wonder of ceaseless creation] of My nature, i.e. that of the All-Creating One, [comes] the fullness which fulfills all needs." And: "What is known as the revealed Buddha is this evidence of My own being. Because it has the centre, the central vigor, it is the Self of everything. As it does not need any deeds, it is the Buddha since the beginning. As it is free of striving and achieving, it is since the beginning known as great. The Great Self is known as the Great Buddha. This evidence which is unborn and non-conceptual is the dimension of Reality [dharmadhatu] ...". [6]

deepbluehum wrote:Any way, Dzogchen is the religion of the dancing dakinis. Dzogchen is completely different from sikhism, thankfully.

While I was celebrating midsummer you guys managed to make Dzogchen in to a religion?

/magnus

With your Wiccan friends? Wicked. He he. Don't be so attached to words. That's the same thing Kevin's doing. He's micro-analyzing words. Dzogchen is a religion is you gather in front of a guy on a podium and sing in unison. If it walks like a duck... I know what you are saying "Dzogchen is your real condition..." That's great. Wonderful.

Actually I am Swedish and midsummer is one of our major holidays, we spend it drinking and eating and trying to make our kids dance around the maypole.

/magnus

"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."- Longchenpa